User:Guyarv/sandbox

This is a user sandbox of Guyarv. You can use it for testing or practicing edits.
This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course.
To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section.

Get Help

This is the user sandbox of Guyarv. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Article Evaluation: Strasbourg/Main Sights/Architecture

LINK: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg#Architecture

There are large content gaps. There is little to no information on the Gothic Cathedral, its main square "Place de la Republique", its historical quarter "Petite France", or its more modern European parliament building. These all deserve some mention in an architecture section as they represent very unique elements of the city and its history.
I do not detect bias or political partisanship on the architecture page.
Viewpoints are not over or underrepresented. However, there is much more content on rennaisance-era architecture than any other period. This wouldn't be so noticeable if the other sections weren't so bare.
Citations (of which there are only three for the whole section)
- Links are formatted and link properly, except for [22], which 404s.
- The two working sources are of low quality, as they link to another Architectural Wiki and not a proper source.
- Higher quality sources on the major architectural features of the city can certainly be found.
- The sources are in French, but I can see that there are no citations whatsoever on the Architectural wiki that was linked to. I would count that as not substantiating the original article's statements.
- I could not find sources that clearly dispute what is on the wikipedia page, but I can certainly find high-quality sources to back it up.
Large citation gaps including entire paragraphs without citations. The article needs to be made more concise in addition to the addition of citations.
Functioning citations are from 2010, of which there are only two. Though these aren't outdated, they are weak sources and should be replaced.
The talk page contains many complaints and squabbles (including a German IP address wreaking havoc with Germanocentric information), but none relating to the architecture section.

Article Evaluation

Urbanization

I felt as though the section on "Dominant Conurbation" would have been better off as its own section. This section also does not cite any sources. Otherwise the article is quite straight forward.
A section on the demographics of urbanization was surprisingly missing. I'd like to see information about age, sex, race, and such pertaining to urbanization trends.
I don't feel so. Though the article was very heavy on the topic of "class", nothing relating to this was uncited or grossly biased.
Within the "causes" section, there are some overstated and oversimplified points, some without citation. These topics included marginalization and alienation as negative impacts of urbanization. The use of these terms came without any citation.
Of the three citations I checked, all went through to the page and were directly referencing information on that page.
Of the 48 sources, most appear to be academic journals or news articles. Obviously both of these will contain ( subconscious) biases. I do not see any sources that may have a stake in information relating to urbanization, so I do not fear any conflict of interest. Then again, the personal authors of the articles could have their own ideological conflicts with the topic.
The oldest source is from 1965, so no, I do not consider that outdated for a discussion on thousands of years of urbanization.
One on formatting, one on a proper definition, one on grammatical consistency, and one on a Urban studies academic commenting on the state of the article.
It is C-Class sociology article and is part of the US Public Policy article WikiProject.
Well, we read this article for class so this question cannot be really answered. It read similarly to the class text.

Lucca

Everything is relevant. Some photo placement is not very aesthetically pleasing, but nothing beyond that.
History of Lucca during the Kingdom of Italy, Fascist Italy, and into the present are missing.
All claims are seemingly neutral.
There are very few viewpoints presented at all, unless there are historically-debated parts in the page's history that I am unaware of.
Some citations do not have working links, but most do and do correspond with information in the page.
No, there are sections without any citations whatsoever. The architecture and history sections need complete re-citing.
Not that I can see. Most of the information within the article is hundreds of years old.
Some on photo layouts, complaints on history section, and a discussion about modern politics in the city.
It is a Start-Class Italy article, and is a high-importance WikiProject Cities article.